Is the appeal process for I-235 camera tickets too confusing?

The Iowa Supreme Court heard about whether the cities have to obey DOT regulations about cameras or if the regulations violate city home rule powers.

Buy Photo

James Larew, standing, a lawyer for a group of drivers suing Des Moines over the process by which the city collects traffic tickets issued by the city's I-235 traffic camera, argues in front of the Iowa Supreme Court on Aug. 9, 2018.(Photo: Stephen Gruber-Miller / The Register)Buy Photo

Are the notices that Des Moines sends to drivers who receive traffic tickets from the city's speed cameras too confusing?

That subject was debated at the Iowa Supreme Court Thursday morning as the justices considered an appeal that argued, in part, that the city's process for collecting those traffic tickets violates an individual's due process rights.

Some of the justices took issue with the notices sent to ticketed drivers, describing them as misleading. The notices provide the driver a date for an upcoming administrative hearing, but also include language describing the ticket as a "judgment" and a "final administrative decision" that can result in collection efforts and legal action if the ticket is not paid. On the second page of the two-page notice, it says drivers can, instead, appeal the ticket through the court system.

"It’s just a lot going on here in a couple paragraphs, and it seems like it could have been explained pretty clear to people just what their options are and how you can navigate through the system," said Chief Justice Mark Cady.

Cady said the notices seem to imply that drivers wishing to appeal their tickets must go through the city's administrative process first, when in reality they can go straight to court.

Justice Thomas Waterman wondered whether the plaintiffs had raised that point in their previous arguments.

"Did any of the plaintiffs contend they were unaware of the option to go directly to court?" he asked.

Michelle Mackel-Wiederanders, a lawyer representing Des Moines, acknowledged that the language in the notices could be clearer, but said that doesn't amount to a due process violation.

"If I could go back and rewrite the notice, I certainly would make it easier," she said.

She said the city believes its administrative process is fair and countered questions from Justices Brent Appel and David Wiggins about whether the language in the notices was, in effect, steering drivers toward a way to resolve ticket disputes that is cheaper for the city.

"We are interested in allowing citizens to voice their complaints as often as possible," she said. "We don’t want to get into litigation with citizens if we can avoid it."

The case at issue Thursday — Weizberg et al. v. City of Des Moines and Gatso USA — is a class action lawsuit, and a lower court judge previously found that Des Moines' process of administrative hearings violated the procedural due process rights of those who were ticketed and wished to appeal. Des Moines is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss that judgment.

Another claim revolves around the exemption of semi trucks from being ticketed by the cameras.

James Larew, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that exemption violates equal protection. And it would "defy the experience of most people who operate vehicles on our public highways" to claim that exempting semis from being ticketed serves a public safety purpose.

The plaintiffs also argue that Gatso USA, the private company that operates the cameras, is unjustly enriching itself. They say the structure of city's ordinance is unconstitutional because Des Moines is relying on Gatso to enforce its police powers.

Paul Burns, a lawyer for Gatso, said Des Moines has control over where the cameras are installed and that a city police officer reviews any vehicles flagged by the camera to determine whether to issue a citation.

"Nothing was going to happen with this system that the city of Des Moines disapproves of," Burns said.

In Leaf's case, the 67-year-old plaintiff, Marla Leaf, says she was wrongly ticketed by an automated traffic camera when she wasn't speeding.

Leaf was driving her Ford Mustang home from an appointment on Feb. 5, 2015, when the automated speed camera system on Interstate Highway 380 in Cedar Rapids clocked her at 68 mph in a 55 mph zone. She recalls that the roads were icy and alleges she was driving so slowly that cars were passing her on both sides. Leaf, who had never had a prior speeding ticket, insists she was traveling between 50 and 55.

All three cases were held over from the court's previous term, which ended June 29, after the justices requested additional briefs and scheduled new arguments.

Larew also represented the plaintiffs in the other two traffic camera cases.

Des Moines' camera is issuing citations again after another Supreme Court decision

The court decision tossed restrictions imposed on several cities, including Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Muscatine, and freed those cities to resume using some cameras that had been prohibited under the DOT rules.

While the Des Moines camera was off, data shows instances of drivers going 11 miles per hour over the 60 mph speed limit — fast enough to trigger a citation — rose sharply. Had the camera been on between April 2017 and June 2018, a monthly average of 19,168 citations would have been issued — more than double the monthly average of 8,217 in the first months of 2017 before the camera was switched off.

Data show seven crashes on that stretch of I-235 during 2017, when the camera was off for more than half the year, compared with nine crashes in 2016 when the camera was active. But the number of crashes on that portion of the road has varied in recent years and remained in the single digits aside from a high of 10 crashes in 2015.